ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

The government doesn't force ALL OF US to buy a car, yet. They don't force you to get a driver's license or buy gas, tires or oil either. You don't have to pay taxes on a vehicle you don't own or pay a penalty for not buying a car. Buying a car, and paying for the associaded expenses, is your choice. Buying health insurance should also be our choice. In exercising our freedom to decide for ourselves, we should also accept the consequences.

It may be good now but you can bet your bottom dollar it won't always be. Those that refuse to buy insurance because they're healthy, still expect to be treated when they're ill or in an accident. I don't think many car insurance companies will issue insurance after you've been in a wreck but that's exactly what these deadbeats (read tea party) expect from health care. I'd like to see how quickly they'd change their minds if their wife, husband or child was allowed to bleed out at a locked emergency room door.

The government doesn't force anyone to be alive or to be in good health. But we all have to pay, via taxes, for anyone to runs to the emergency room without health insurance. So if you don't want to be forced to have health insurance, don't be alive, don't smoke, don't drink, eat right, exercise, etc.

No one should FORCE anyone to do anything. The problem is the health care system is flawed, forcing someone to buy insurance isn't going to solve the problem with insurance companies, hospitals, doctors or billing.

What's hilarious to me is that when everyone finally realizes the President's healthcare plan was in fact not only the right thing to do for millions of Americans, it was also the most fiscally responsible thing to do to control government spending in the long term, the tea partyers will take credit for seeing it first. I bet one of those hillbillies will say,"hey, our guy (Romney) thought of it first". Their ignorance is simultanously alarming and predictable.

"the most fiscally responsible thing". Speaking of hilarious; do you bother to actually read the news on this topic? The cost projections from OMB have almost DOUBLED from what they were when Obama signed it into law. Fiscally responsible? And you say that in the same sentence with the word "government"? Can the rest of us have some of what you've been smoking?

Right, no one should be forced to do anything, especially not accept one's responsibility to contribute to society. The irony here is that some of these tea baggers were "forced" to go to school. Didn't help much, did it?

The whole of this is that the feds are stepping past their power. They (Congress/Obama} are forcing us to buy something from a private business. They do not have this power. If they do this than there will be a pres. set and there is no telling what they will do. The states have some poweres like this, but they are also limited. Lets stop comp. apples to oranges and stick to the facts. If we let them (the fed. gov) pull this, than you need to start being very very afraid of the fed. gov. They will then have assumed all power to blow off the Const. Wise up, you are pissing away your freedom if you letr them get away with this.

I guess those who don't want to buy insurance should be banned from discharging any debt they run up for medical care they can't pay for. Since we can't let them die when they get hit by a car, get cancer or have a heart attack, the least we can expect in return is that they have the bill hanging around their neck for the rest of their lives.

I was going to write an elaborate post, but it wouldn't do any good. It wouldn't change the mind of any Obamacare supporters. Answer me this. Where does it end? If this government is SO concerned about our health, why not ban anything deemed unhealthy? Why not institute mandatory diet and exercise? Why not work harder at preventing health problems rather than treating them? Some people are just sheep and expect the government to take care of everything. And in doing so, they will allow the government will take everything.

I understand where you coming from, I too get tired of paying for others problems BUT if they don't carry insurance under Obamacare, then they pay a penalty, how exactly is that going to push them to pay the bills then?? Nothing is going to change under this plan..call me crazy but if I get hurt and I am insured, I go to the hospital and get treatment, the insurance company is "suppose" to cover 80% and I pay my deductable and 20%..right?!? Have you EVER had this happen without dealing with your insurance company? Have you ever had a bill that was correct?? Have you ever not gotten the same bill more than once, even after you pay it? Have you ever seen the contracted negotiated rates between your insurance company and the hospital and wondered why your bill was 3X that much?!? The system is flawed but the problem is you can literaly insure yourself to death and still not win but wait...let's let the federal government handle it?!?!?

Oh, I'm not a fan of insurance carriers. I've paid as much as $1800 per month for a $5200 deductible plan, and there were several years where the insurer never paid a penny out because I simply didn't use more than the deductible. That said, if private insurers are to be involved, the only way to bring rates down is to force everyone to buy coverage even when they are young and healthy, thus widening the pool of insureds. Without the mandate, this version won't work.

There is an alternative - Medicare for all aka universal coverage single payer system funded through the Medicare tax system already in place. I'd bet that the monthly increase wouldn't be anywhere near $1800 per month. Oh, that would put private insurers out of business. Pity.

Why not open up the market to true interstate commerce and allow insurance to be sold across state lines? More options and greater competition might actually bring down the cost without any tax increase. Each state seems to have an insurance oligopoly in place that lawmakers are content to leave intact. We can at least try opening the market rather than dismissing the option outright.

Those that are against the ACA should never complain when they get medical bills that are inflated due to having to pay for those that don't have insurance.

[i]“Where in the Constitution is my health care any of your business?” one protester’s sign declared."[/i]

Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone should have to pay for your lack of insurance when you need medical care (and then pass the cost onto others)?

President Obama is in a win-win situation regardless how the Court decides. If they decide in favor of the ACA he wins and if they don't he still wins.

If the mandate is shot down he can use this to rally the far left; reminding them what happens when a Republican president gets to pick the next Supreme Court justice nominee.

The Republicans, who has never cared for any constituent that didn't make millions, will have to come up finally with something between June and election day and as the past has shown they will have nothing to offer.

I repeatedly wrote my Democratic Representative to share my concerns. I even looked him in the eye and hand delivered my letter. After 4 months I wrote again and finally got a response. In his letter he twisted my comments 180 degrees to support his own opinion and then had the gall to thank me for my support!! Thanks to redistricting, I now have the chance to be ignored by a Republican. At least I know he cannot do any worse than the last empty suit. And I'm confident this Republican is interested in defending my rights and freedoms instead of limiting them.

And as for the Republicans coming up with something, tell me when was the last time the Democrats passed a budget?

I guess I don't understand, so maybe you guys can explain this to me. If this passes the two options are 1) buy health insurance or 2) pay a "tax penalty"..correct? So, if I don't buy health insurance and I pay the penalty, what exactly will force me to pay for the hospital visit I just had? My question is, how is the going to solve people paying their medical bills which then will stop passing costs over to others? Not trying to be a smart a**, just wondering..

The idea is that most people will buy the insurance to avoid the penalty. If the penalty is big enough, it might work. Supposedly, if more people sign up for insurance, then rates will fall.

I think the biggest problem will be that lots of businesses will drop their insurance coverage and pay the fine for doing so instead. That fine is a lot lower than the cost of insuring employees. When they drop coverage, the employees will have to go to the exchanges for coverage and pay for it themselves, using the tax subsidy to help pay for it if they are within the income levels that qualify for subsidies.

The better approach would have been Medicare for all, with a tax on wages to support it.

If you work for a corporation with 270,000 employees, insurance is "relatively" cheap. If you work for a small business of 3, the gouge factor is probably X4. Lawyers run ads on national TV looking for anyone that has one of the advertised side effects of a drug so they can sue. "If you took Zoloft during pregnancy..." If you did, you deserve what you got, stupid. The whole concept is busted from one end to the other.

The debt levels of states varies greatly, Mass. could afford Romneycare. Romney balanced the budget before passing Romneycare and got a consenus from the people, something that Obama has not done. Let's also don't forget, there was a very low percentage of uninsured's in Mass.

So do away with this plan and then we are back to the same old sorry ways of doing business. We, the taxpayer, pay for the people who don't have healthcare. At least this bill makes everyone chip in, and take responisibility for themselves. We've always had healthcare for everyone, they just don't have to pay for it. I'm okay with either way but I don't want to hear the Republicans down the road saying that the trama centers are in trouble and hospitals will be closing and Dr. aren't making enough because of all those nasty lawsuits..... Please..

The people in Mass. wanted Romneycare and still do. In fact the actual cost of insurance went down. That will not happen on a national level because of the unbalanced budget and greater demand. Then again, you already knew that didn't you.

You asked the question about "criminal extortion" and Romneycare. I explained the difference. Again, the people of Mass. wanted Romneycare, Romney had already balanced the state budget and there was a lower percentage rate of uninsured's in Mass.

I don't really care what other states do, but as you are aware, many other states are not in the same fiscal shape as Mass., and they have larger numbers of uninsured.

Being forced to buy insurance or fined exceeds the Federal Government's authority, but that is only one point. There is also the question of Contract Law. In order to have a binding contract you have to have two willing participants. You are destroying hundreds of years of Common Law if the government is allowed to force you into a contract. That is a game changer and opens the door for all kinds of mischief from big brother.

The Sentencing Reform Act, part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, was a U.S. federal statute intended to increase consistency in United States federal sentencing. It established the United States Sentencing Commission.[1] It also abolished federal parole.[2]